Just posted: Quick Pentax K-30 samples gallery

We've prepared a quick samples gallery using the Pentax K-30 - Pentax' latest mid-level DSLR with a 16.3MP CMOS sensor. We're working on a review but recently technical writer Lars Rehm had the chance to take the camera and the 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 lens on a road trip down the coast on Highway 101 and to Crater Lake in Oregon, taking a lot of pictures along the way. The review is in the pipeline, but in the meantime we hope you enjoy these pictures, which should give you a taste of what the camera can do.

Most of the images have been taken at the camera's default settings, but since there is raw support available for the K-30, we have also processed four images in Adobe Camera Raw 7.1 - for those we have added an 'acr' suffix to the file name.

Pentax K-30 samples gallery

There are 25 images in this samples gallery. Please do not reproduce any of these images on a website or any newsletter / magazine without prior permission (see our copyright page). We make the originals available for private users to download to their own machines for personal examination or printing (in conjunction with this review), we do so in good faith, please don't abuse it.

Unless otherwise noted images taken with no particular settings at full resolution. Because our review images are now hosted on the 'galleries' section of dpreview.com, you can enjoy all of the galleries functionality when browsing these samples.

I think it's almost a carbon copy of the K-5 in the IQ department, which of course is not a bad thing. My only gripe with the Pentax K-30 in the short time I have had is that it tends to underexpose in some shooting conditions...but I would rather it underexposed than overexposed. I am not blown away with the 18-135WR lens, but overall I think it does alright optically. I thought the now discontinued 18-250 was of better optical quality... but of course that lens is not weather-sealed. But overall I am very impressed with the K-30... AF performance has improved over prior models quite noticeably as well.

I never said anything about this being my only lens.. I was just making some observations about the optical quality of the lens as I find myself using it a lot. And I honestly don't think it's that bad. I wouldn't use it for critical work... but the optical quality to me is satisfactory in most situations.

Yes, the FA43 f/1.9 is very nice. It's an outstanding lens that meets all your criteria. The DA35/2.4 is an inexpensive alternative that is surprisingly good too, and though it looks slower than some similar lenses on paper, it has very good IQ wide open (which is often hard to come by in an inexpensive lens).

Finally, the FA31 f/1.8 has smooth bokeh and smooth transitions to OOF that may well be unmatched by any brand around this focal length.

Spend the extra money and go with the 43mm LTD over the 40mm pancake. I can't imagine buying a Pentax camera and not owning either the 31,43,or 77mm ltds. Or preferably all of them.I'd also recommend getting a used 'made in Japan' version over a new 'made in Vietnam' version.

The newer Pentax lenses are not made in Vietnam but assembled there - all the parts are made in Japan AFAIK. They are either AIV not MIJ and there's no proof that one is better than the other. I've got a a 31LTD (AIV) and a 77LTD (MIJ) and both are wonderful lenses. I would also recommend the DA*55 f1.4 or the Sigma 50 f/1.4 but any number of MF Lenses would work a treat on the K-30 with focus peaking too.

The 43 1.9 is an excellent lens, but notice on the Photozone reviews how superb the 40 2.8 Limited performs on the K-5, whereas the 43 1.9, like many fast lenses, has corner issues that are exposed in the K-5 in a way they were not on earlier Pentax models. Certainly all the 3 lenses you mention are great, but if your shooting APS-C as most Pentax shooters are, the DA Limited lenses like the 40 2.8, and the 70 2.4 are absolute gems, and are about half the price of the faster 31, 43, and 77. Clearly we'd all like to own a 77 1.8, but $1000 for one an f1.8 prime is a major investment.

In my opinion the pictures look good. There are some flaws of the lens of course (some corner softness etc.) but I think the quality of the camera (and sensor) itself can bewell judged from the pictures. As a K-r user I can tell two things: 1. dynamic range of the K-30 is better than the DR of my camera and 2. high ISO capability of the K-30 is much better that the K-r (ISO 6400 of the K-30 equals to ISO 3200 of my K-r). That being said, along with wether sealing makes the K-30 an ideal future camera for me.

I thought the 18-135 looked pretty good here. Its been given a bad wrap and yes some of the shots looks a bit soft on the edges, where most look well within what I would say is acceptable for a kit lens.The squirrel shot had soft edges and some of the scenery was pretty sharp to the edges, which would be opposite to what I expected.Without the exif data, hard to know the settings and physical distance of surroundings.I would expect this is northern hemisphere summer and some heat and atmospheric fall off at the edges of the scenic shots, but its pretty good.Overall, for jpegs out of the box its good stuff.Thank goodness they didnt use the 18-55, I have almost given up on taking photos yesterday because of that soft piece of junk. Have to bide my time, use my 55-300 more and save my pennies for some better primes or zooms.

Looks good. The lens is sharp in the center but struggles mightily near the edges to the point I'd call it unacceptable. Being a 7.5x zoom comparable to the 28-200mm zooms of the film days, you can't expect it to be perfect.

Never understand these samples galleries, including on other sites. Too many images "from the wrong end of a binoculars." I would take photos at 2-3 feet, 5 feet, 10 feet, 15 feet, maybe 20. Then you can tell focus accuracy, continuity of tones, ability to discriminate colors, highlights, etc. Yes, some low light photos make sense. But what does a snapshot of a distant landscape really demonstrate?

When you make comments like this, it makes it hard for others to buy into the system and take the reviews of Pentax primes/pancakes more seriously. You are not helping Pentax in making fanboyish statements like this...everyone here has eyes, possibly has comparable kit lens and experience to compare to. By making statements like this you basically give people pause in questioning the legitimacy of reviews of Pentax lenses that actually perform *well* in IQ?

Look at IMGP0053....it is there for everyone to see in plain sight, no need for a war of words when we have images.

I have a K-30 and am extremely happy with it. Raw files are excellent. Fantastic high ISO ability, totally usable ISO 6400. K-30 files are really nice to work with in LR as DR is stellar, maybe only a notch below my D800 for DR, but similar. You can recover lost highlights or push shadows with virtually no penalty, i.e. no weird banding or ugly artifacts.

The camera itself is a joy to use - small, superb deep grip, two command dials, bright 920 K LCD and intuitive controls. Focus peaking makes manual focus trivial, a great feature especially if you're interested in some of the excellent MF lenses available like the Takumars and Pentax As and optical marvals like the Samyang 35 1.4 and Zeiss ZE lenses.

The small size, the great 16 mp Exmor sensor, and weather sealing made this body an easy choice for me.

Cool video thanks, what lens did you use for the video? Were you using a tripod?

Just looking for a good, high ISO capable, big sensored, quiet, dslr or mirrorless, that happens to do video. (Tried the Samsung NX20, but that looks to be a failure for one very specific reason--the incredibly slow buffer when shooting raw.)

Poor performance from that lens. If Pentax wants to put this camera in a good light, they should really deliver it for testing along with some of their prized limited lenses, otherwise we form our opinion on samples like these, and that opinion isn't very positive. The Jpeg engine doesnt seem to be very good either. Just check the second image, look at the lacking sharpness on the island, and the jpeg artifacts in the foreground water. The third image is no where sharp, when looked at 100% and it has the same gritty look in the blues (compression artifacts ?), as viewed on my monitor. The fifth shows the lens's flaws in the corners, despite being shot at F8, and I could go on forever. Offcourse, I shoot professionally and my quality standards are pretty high, but there are some aspects that even an amateur would notice. I wouldn't go as far as saying some images look as though they were shot using an iPhone, but I think shooting Jpeg with a kit lens doesn't do this camera justicce.

I don't know what you shoot with but your pics are good but you've really got to change how you do your mono conversions. Very muddy and flat which, sometimes, can be the result of the lens. Good shooting :)

HowaboutRAW: Raw Raw! U R correct. I guess what we have here is a failure of technology to keep up with our need. Sadly though, the work RAW to most casual snappers conjures up images only of sushi and salmonella, so JPEG is probably what we are going to be stuck with for a while. So at least let us have thumbnail rollover exif!

I liked the artistic quality of the pictures. (As compared to the Olympus 75 1.8 samples) Keep it up, Dpreview!Some mentioned there are some overexposed pics.If they are shot in auto mode, it's a truthful reflection of the camera's ability.

The worst kit lens, or any mobile phone or p&s stopped down will be sharp when scaled down...what does that even mean? The bottom line is when stopped down its border and I dare say midrange performance is lacking relative to center. Downsize and you throw away that center resolution and give the borders a major handicap. If your end result is purely downsized viewing for daylight photos your phone can do that.

Using this camera as a P&S doesn't really give an indication of it's potential. It's obviously not representative of the capabilities of the camera if you just stuck to the settings it came out of the box with and a kit lens. What is the purpose of this gallery if not to showcase what is possible when some thought is put into the cameras use instead of a mindless snapfest? Some of the shots are 'clearly' OOF and over exposed. To be frank, bit more effort would have been nice.

Which picture(s) Mike? Can't see any on my monitor (well, arguably only the first one (night shot of theatre), but that is an OOC JPEG of a high contrast scene at ISO3200, so I am not too concerned ...)

Sorry but these samples show exactly why it has a poor rep. Soft left border even stopped down heavily at 18mm. Sorry but Canons 18-135 STM or my $300 GF3 + 14mm outperforms this. And I'm viewing the samples on a low res tablet even.

No need to be sorry.I haven't had the opportunity to compare Canon's NEW lens with that of the Pentax weather resistant lens so I can't comment.I'm very happy that your 14mm f2.5 PRIME lens on the GF3 manages to outperform the 18-135 ZOOM lens.Do you think it performs as well under the rain without protection or when trying to capture an object at 18mm or135mm?Of course lens choice depends on what one is shooting and under what conditions.Also when you compare the NEW STM canon lens announced June 8th 2012 to the Pentax lens which was announced Sept 20th 2010 one would hope that it would be better. I notice you chose not to compare the Pentax lens to the older Canon version announced Sept 1 2009.

Yes the GF3 + prime will perform well under the rain. First of all the 14mm prime would work just dandy on the GH3 which will be weather sealed or the OM-D. Second of all my GF3 is of small enough stature and investment to be used with confidence in anything but a full-blown storm under an umbrella. Not exactly a whole lot of surface area for me to protect in a portable with 14mm pancake and doesn't take a whole lot of MacGyver genius to protect it from the elements does it?

Sorry but these were bright and sunny shots and allowed the user to stop down heavily...boy the low light shot where it was still stopped down to f4.5 was downright awful compared to the f7.1's. So what aperture or what exactly do you intend to shoot in poor weather with no light...wide-open pure *mush*? You can talk about your photographic skills and minor lens issue and WR superiority all day, show me your fantastic 18mm low-light wide-open shot in poor weather that is so compelling.

I haven't got so much money that I would risk going out in heavy rain with the GF3 plus 14mm but that's just me. I prefer to protect my investment.From what I understand in order to be weather resistant both lens and body should be WR not just the body although I may be wrong.Of course there are workarounds to protect it from the rain but my question was regarding gear with no protection i.e. umbrella etc. which is of course the point of WR.A Dpreview pointed out these shots where taken at default settings so we really can't know for sure how good the shots could be if the camera was optimised.I guess a working camera producing any shot at 18mm would be perfereable to a non-fuctioning camera due to water damage.Which photographic skills and minor lens issues are you referring to?By the way,I love my OMD and 14mm and am neither knocking your lens or camera, I'm just pointing out that in certain situations one system would be preferable to the other and vice versa.

If you sell a lens that you had previously semi-immersed in a river would you as a seller, or a buyer, expect a significant discount to be taken from original price? Been awhile since I took AP biology, but I remember some fungi are definitely of the microscopic variety, and personally I have no problem believing that these lenses will still electrically and mechanically function days, months, a year after being soaked. What I have a problem believing is that having lens that have been in heavy weather, soil, and the elements are not in some ways more susceptible to fungi after say 3 years vs lens that simply are not exposed or protected. IMO when you shoot in poor weather, you do so *willingly* for the photos without regard of long-term investment of your lens, regardless of it being weather sealed or not. So yes I would risk lens of the kit variety to poor weather regardless of weather sealing...if they make it out alive to last several years or so its still money well spent.

It's this simple in regards to the lens comparison...I personally don't care if photozone or someone declares a lens to be an optical dud...it bugs me however if I see it with my plain eyes on a heavily stopped down aperture on a tablet...is that simple enough of an explanation? Canon's 18-135 STM has already been previewed on this site with samples as well with several shots at 18mm at wider apertures and my eyes did not complain. The Pentax 18-135 is worse than *either* Canon 18-135, but the 18-135 STM has improved even further. I see no reason why there needs to be so much defense on these samples with this kit lens. It makes Pentax defenders seem quite forgiving of lens quality when I thought the primes/pancakes do quite well in that aspect?

Also I have no problems with the camera or sensor, they both seem terrific. I'm just saying I think *that* kit lens is a dud. Not all kit lens are dud, and not one brand has a monopoly on quality kit lens...I'm just saying based on what I *see* here with these samples, *that* kit lens looks like a dud to *me*. I would hope or expect that Pentax owners would say, 'yah this lens is pretty poor in IQ but we have terrific pancakes and primes that we can use with low profile instead, etc', but instead we seem to have more of an emperor has no clothes issue. Either way you shouldn't be afraid to risk your gear at the expense of getting a shot, and either way a weather-sealed emblem is not a guarantee its 100% bulletproof and will retain your investment 5 years from now.

Blah blah blah by Timbukto who has pronounced that the flaws of a lens that 99.99% of humanity would neither notice nor care about are fatal flaws and that, if you disagree, you're clearly an insane fanboy. Spare us.

There are definitely sharper and higher quality lenses for Pentax, but as a general walk-about tourist lens, the 18-135mm does a fine job. It's not pretending to be a pro lens designed to produce large prints for display in a gallery, it does what it does for a reasonable price and many, many people would be happy with it.

Appeal to popularity much? 99.99% of humanity would be fine shooting with their tablets. Fact of the matter is, this kit lens adds a cost to the body which could be used for some smaller/lighter pancake/primes. Shoot your system to exploit its strengths...not to use it as a over-sized P&S that looks like a bling bling basketball shoe. Want to be able to jump to both portrait and wide focal lengths? That is why there exists MFT systems...you can quickly jump to whatever focal point you want with another body and get the most out of either camera. Not to mention you'll have a backup pair of body or lens just in case you were overzealous about its weather sealing.

That would be the point: it's a consumer lens and the average consumer finds blurry and grainy iphone photos to be perfectly fine, judging by the sheer volume of them on Flickr. This combo is substantially superior to that.

An 18-135 is a travel zoom. I hope Canon's new STM version turns out to be better than all others available right now, but none of them will be truly outstanding. On an absolute basis, they all have below average IQ, as a 7.5x zoom necessitates.

I don't think the Canon's good enough to brag about, nor the Pentax poor enough to disparage. But each can produce some nice results within their limitations.

I think these lenses fulfill a useful purpose for their respective brands. And both brands produce some outstanding primes for those who wish them. These fulfill a different need. Perhaps owning the better lenses makes it easier to accept these for the times when zoom convenience is a priority.

In other words, I like much of what I see from this lens, but I also view it as a relatively inexpensive lens (at its bundle price) which I might actually use sometimes, unlike the 18-55 kit zoom which I never use.

If you want IQ you have to break it up into 16-50 and 50-135 or get primes.

@ Timbukto,I think if that both camera and lens aren't sealed then the elements could damage not only the lens but also the camera. And you use the conitional IF it makes it out alive which isn't necessary with the Pentax which was my point. Thanks for agreeing.

Why else would someone risk ruining a camera for a shot? What shot exactly?

As said before the NEW Canon should be better as it's just been released.

I dispute your claim however re the old version however.

One hopes that a new iteration of the Pentax would also be an improvement.

It isn't the best lens in Pentax's arsenal but neither is the new canon. They are kit lenses which produce decent image quality considering the price in the bundle. Nobody's claiming they are the holy grail of lenses.

A challenge to you.

The next time it rains heavily go out for a couple of hours and take some shots without any protection.

Then you can publish them on the gallery page and report back on the condition of the camera.

Gone on, prove the point you were making and prove to everyone the invalidity of all those manufacturers producing weather-sealed equipment who have been ripping us off.

Again you must be rolling in money. Two bodies, with money for a third no doubt in case one succumbs to bad weather.

Of course if the lens you used was also damaged you'd need a backup for that too in order to get the shot next time. But which lens is damaged? Depends on which one you used at the time so better double up on all the lenses too.OR,you could have a weather-sealed body and lens for bad weather and primes or higher spec'd zooms for better weather

It certainly seems fair to compare the DA 18-135mm with a newly released Canon lens, as the Pentax is still the latest and greatest. Until Pentax revises their lens, the many edge-soft examples will continue to make people hesitate, those who care about such things, anyway. It's all the more disappointing because K-30 + 18-135mm WR seems like such a "right" package.

No problem with comparing them.Also no surprise that a lens released 18 months later than another is better. One would hope so or Canon would be going backwards.Personally I'd go body only and DA 55mm 1.4